Research notes on every problem, and a library of the papers behind them. Built from the open erdos repository.
Updated
Source. S. Fan, Strongly complete sets and a conjecture of Erdős, arXiv:2607.14071v5 (16 September 2026); Remark 4.2 on p. 20 (the second paragraph of Remark 4.1 of v4, p. 19, with the same content), with the definition (1.5) on p. 3, the definitions (1.8) and (1.9) and Corollary 1.2 on p. 4 and the discussion of Hegyvári's conjecture on p. 4. The artifacts are identified on the source card.
Read depth. Claims checked: the remark, the definitions and Corollary 1.2 were read clause by clause in the text layer of v5 and compared with v4; the remark's half-page argument was read through and not independently reviewed; Corollary 1.2 rests on Theorem 1.1, whose proof (Section 4) was not read. A preprint.
Statement
Definitions (pp. 3--4). For , (1.5) (p. 3) is for every (equivalently, the paper's spectrum is ). (1.8) is the smallest positive integer with this property: whenever satisfies (1.5) and for all large enough , is strongly complete. For ,
means for some , and is a dyadic rational when for some nonzero integer . Hegyvári's conjecture, as the paper reports it (p. 4): if and are not both dyadic rationals, then is complete. Corollary 1.2 (p. 4). If satisfies (1.5) and has at least five elements in for all large enough , then is strongly complete; that is, . Remark 4.2 (p. 20). If were , then would be strongly complete, and so complete, for all with that are not both dyadic rationals; Hegyvári's conjecture would follow.
Proof pointer
Remark 4.2 (p. 20). Label the parameters so that is not a dyadic rational, and write . Because , the rays and meet in a finite set. Multiplying and by suitable powers of moves both into , where they differ (as ) and is still not a dyadic rational; this changes by finitely many elements, which affects neither (1.5) nor strong completeness. Then, for every large enough , is the disjoint union of , and a finite set , and for each the integers and differ and both lie in , so each such interval holds at least two elements of . Since is not a dyadic rational, for infinitely many ; for each such and each the triangle inequality gives , so the sum in (1.5) diverges. With two elements in every such interval and (1.5), would make strongly complete. Read through; not reviewed.
Dependencies
Theorem 1.1 and Corollary 1.2 of the same paper for ; v5's Remark 4.1 for ; Hegyvári's 1989 paper for the conjecture and its proved case (cited as the paper's [25]; not held).
Bears on
- Problem 354: context. The remark's hypothesis is unproved ( is what the paper gives), so it resolves neither the irrational-ratio question, which the site-accepted Lean proof on the Conjectures.io card answers, nor the rational-ratio cases of Hegyvári's conjecture with neither number a dyadic rational (the paper reports that Hegyvári confirmed the case where exactly one is, p. 4), which remain open; the bounty site's review cites the paper (v4) as leaving "the relevant two-ray case unresolved".